How often do favourites win?

[Cobba Stevens]

Every favourite in Round 6 won.

I felt as though it was pretty uncommon, so I investigated.
Unfortunately online I couldn't find archival betting odds that went beyond round 13, 2009.

What I did find within that time, is that only 4 times every favourite (not including split and bye rounds) had won in that round. Astonishing really...

I know its only early, and any kind of trend that I can see is in it's infant stages, but in recent times more favourites are winning.

In 2009 it was 50/72 or 69.4% - (only data available)
In 2010 it was 109/176 or 61.9%
In 2011 it was 142/187 or 75.9%
In 2012 it was 155/198 or 78.2%
So far in 2013 it was 41/54 or 75.9%

These favoritism data has come from OddSportal.com

I did a graph of this. You can find it at http://cobbastevens.wordpress.com/2...nt-expect-your-expectations-will-be-expected/

 

[RogersResults]

Every favourite in Round 6 won.

I felt as though it was pretty uncommon, so I investigated.
Unfortunately online I couldn't find archival betting odds that went beyond round 13, 2009.

What I did find within that time, is that only 4 times every favourite (not including split and bye rounds) had won in that round. Astonishing really...

I know its only early, and any kind of trend that I can see is in it's infant stages, but in recent times more favourites are winning.

In 2009 it was 50/72 or 69.4% - (only data available)
In 2010 it was 109/176 or 61.9%
In 2011 it was 142/187 or 75.9%
In 2012 it was 155/198 or 78.2%
So far in 2013 it was 41/54 or 75.9%

These favoritism data has come from OddSportal.com

I did a graph of this. You can find it at http://cobbastevens.wordpress.com/2...nt-expect-your-expectations-will-be-expected/

Do not take any of this as a means of 'beating the bookie'. Bookmakers love all the dillusional dupes who give them money but they especially lick there lips in anticipation at those who bet on 'favourites' or who have 'systems'. A search of the internet will find you 'advice' from gambling 'experts' that betting on 'favourites' is a poor strategy. What they won't tell you (because they are selling something too) is that while betting on 'favourites' will tend to lose you more money, in the end it is who takes the bets and sets the odds that always comes out ahead in the end - no matter what stategy or 'system' the punter has. There would be no gambling 'industry' if it were otherwise.

If you can limit yourself to affordable amounts and get more entertainment by risking your money than spending it on another form of entertainment or something more tangible, then don't waste your time on anything more than an informed guess, the chances are that you'll lose less than pouring money and effort into schemes and 'systems' with an illusory pay-out at the end if only you can find more money to 'invest' in it. (An giant alarm bell should ring if the word 'invest' is used in any connection with gambling.)

Unfortunately what can be a bit of fun for some could with the proliferation and ease of betting on games lead to the destruction of game we love and the clubs we follow with a passion.

Suggest that original post be moved moved to the Punting Board where like thinkers may greet it with less disapporoval.

 

[Cobba Stevens]

Do not take any of this as a means of 'beating the bookie'. Bookmakers love all the dillusional dupes who give them money but they especially lick there lips in anticipation at those who bet on 'favourites' or who have 'systems'. A search of the internet will find you 'advice' from gambling 'experts' that betting on 'favourites' is a poor strategy. What they won't tell you (because they are selling something too) is that while betting on 'favourites' will tend to lose you more money, in the end it is who takes the bets and sets the odds that always comes out ahead in the end - no matter what stategy or 'system' the punter has. There would be no gambling 'industry' if it were otherwise.

If you can limit yourself to affordable amounts and get more entertainment by risking your money than spending it on another form of entertainment or something more tangible, then don't waste your time on anything more than an informed guess, the chances are that you'll lose less than pouring money and effort into schemes and 'systems' with an illusory pay-out at the end if only you can find more money to 'invest' in it. (An giant alarm bell should ring if the word 'invest' is used in any connection with gambling.)

Unfortunately what can be a bit of fun for some could with the proliferation and ease of betting on games lead to the destruction of game we love and the clubs we follow with a passion.

Suggest that original post be moved moved to the Punting Board where like thinkers may greet it with less disapporoval.

Yeah good advice, although punting on games hadn't even crossed my mind when I did this. I didn't mention it once. It wasn't a strategy or nor was I trying to give advice. Merely recognizing how often the underdog wins. Sure, it might be helpful advice in my footy tips, but really just investigating the whole aspect of 'the favourite', and how unpredictable our game really is.

Perhaps even could be said the bookies are becoming smarter at predicting the favourite?

 

[RogersResults]

Yeah good advice, although punting on games hadn't even crossed my mind when I did this. I didn't mention it once. It wasn't a strategy or nor was I trying to give advice. Merely recognizing how often the underdog wins. Sure, it might be helpful advice in my footy tips, but really just investigating the whole aspect of 'the favourite', and how unpredictable our game really is.

Perhaps even could be said the bookies are becoming smarter at predicting the favourite?

The caution was aimed at anyone who might think it was. There is no way of knowing who reads posts. Anything that mentions 'odds' could lead to ideas about betting.

A survey of tips in the media would be a better guage of who were 'favourites' and who were 'underdogs' than the odds offered by bookmakers which once the book is open are determined by formulas that make sure the bookmaker will come out ahead - not by who the bookmaker thinks will win.

Teams placed significantly lower on the ladder than their opponents have won near the same percentage of matches every season all the way back to 1897.

Percentage of wins by teams 4 or more places below on the ladder than their opponents is so far in 2013, less than 1 percent off the median for the last 15 seasons but a couple of percent down on last year. (But don't bet on it.)

 

[Belnakor]

Teams placed significantly lower on the ladder than their opponents have won near the same percentage of matches every season all the way back to 1897.

really? Find that amazing when you consider the early saints / uni teams that lost nigh on every game and recently the richmond/melbourne/gws/gc issues.

 

[RogersResults]

really? Find that amazing when you consider the early saints / uni teams that lost nigh on every game and recently the richmond/melbourne/gws/gc issues.

Yes really.

In the 8 team competition 1897-1907 teams 2 or more places below on the ladder won an average of 16.7% of the matches each season.
In the 12 team competition 1945-1986 teams 3 or more places below on the on the ladder won an average of 16.7% of the matches each season.
In the 16 team competition 1995-2010 teams 4 or more places below on the on the ladder won an average of 19.3% of the matches each season.

The League's 'equalisation' policies may account for the 2.6% rise 1995-2010. Some seasons are of course more even than others. For example in 1957 teams placed 3 or more places below on the ladder won 31.25% of matches. (Geelong, the wooden-spooner that year had the highest match/win percentage of any team finishing last on the ladder.)

There have always been weak team's struggling to win but that evens out over seasons. St Kilda after a dismal start became more competitive after 1902. Geelong starting well dropped to the bottom (1908) at the same time St Kilda was playing finals. University started well but fell away once the competition became professional from 1911.

​

First 51 matches of teams that joined the League after 1897.​

Note: None of this should be taken as information to assist betting on matches. Sophisticated algorithms are used to to determine the odds, guaranteeing that in the end the punter is always behind.

 

[twarby]

from 2003 there has been 1956 matches, 43 games the odds were even, so excluding them and also the 21 draws. Favourites have won 1320 games, Underdogs 573. (69.73%)

People can win at betting Roger, you sound like you think nobody can and that bookies have developed some magic formula to beat everybody else, their AFL stuff is not efficient and hasn't improved much in the last decade.

 

[RogersResults]

from 2003 there has been 1956 matches, 43 games the odds were even, so excluding them and also the 21 draws.

People can win at betting Roger, you sound like you think nobody can and that bookies have developed some magic formula to beat everybody else, their AFL stuff is not efficient and hasn't improved much in the last decade.

Short term wins sure, but the longer you go the more will be lost in the end. The bookies do have a mathematical ("magic") formula in calculating the odds that enures that they stay ahead. Denial of this is part of the disease. Every punter boasts about a win but are silent about the losses. It is usually only revealed when friends of the worst hooked notice that their punting pal's partner has left them, the bank has auctioned their house and they have moved into a caravan park.

When the parasite Tom Waterhouse says "Gamble responsibly" with that irksome grin on his face, he should be saying, "Sit down with your accountant and calculate how much you can afford to lose gambling each year".

Now for this piece of un-sourced BS. "Favourites have won 1320 games, Underdogs 573. (69.73%)"

Being a betting 'favourite' does not mean that a team is "better" or that a careful appraisal of form and match-ups would lead to the conclusion that that team would win. Shorter odds can mean supporters of well supported clubs 'backing' their team just in the hope of win or the bookmakers 'laying-off' bets to bring down the odds and even up their 'book'.

As a consequence what has started to develop is the impression, amongst younger and less sophisticated minds is that the team with shorter betting odds, is always the better team and the one most likely to win. It ain't necessarily so.

Gambling has destroyed sporting competitions in other parts of the world, the more those who wish to gamble keep it to themselves the better. As Jeff Kennnet so aptly said in the 4 Corners investigation into sport and gambling aired on the ABC last night, "They (the bookmakers) are not just saying that its O.K. to gamble, but that you are a mug if you don't."

 

[twarby]

why do all Australian bookmakers(Yes all) kick out anyone who shows even the slightest bit of smarts then? I though they have a magic formula to work out their odds they shouldn't be worried about anybody.

Why can't you bet unpopular teams and underdogs? if all these favourites are unders according to you then these unpopular teams and underdogs must be value, this is what the majority of successful bettors do.

Bombers are favourites this week, as are West Coast, my original reply to this thread groups them together as "favourites." You should be able to see how misleading that can be, although judging by your replies you seem to think they are the same.

I enjoy what you do and always check out your website each week but you really are off the mark with a lot of what you have said here.

 

[RogersResults]

why do all Australian bookmakers(Yes all) kick out anyone who shows even the slightest bit of smarts then? I though they have a magic formula to work out their odds they shouldn't be worried about anybody.

Why can't you bet unpopular teams and underdogs? if all these favourites are unders according to you then these unpopular teams and underdogs must be value, this is what the majority of successful bettors do.

Bombers are favourites this week, as are West Coast, my original reply to this thread groups them together as "favourites." You should be able to see how misleading that can be, although judging by your replies you seem to think they are the same.

I enjoy what you do and always check out your website each week but you really are off the mark with a lot of what you have said here.

I think you have misunderstood the point I was making - it was simply that, betting 'favourites' are not necessarily those that would be favoured to win by an informed judgement not concerned with betting odds. Sorry if we seem to be a cross purposes on this.

You have also probably gathered that I am not a fan of sports betting - betting on dice rolls, roulette wheel spins etc. seems to me to have far less potential for 'collateral damage.'